The Worst Paragraph in Chapter One of Natural Capitalism

Review, of sorts, by Allen B. Downey

Natural Capitalism by Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins is assigned reading this summer at Olin College. I've only read the first 8 pages, but already I've found the stupidest paragraph I've read this year. Here it is:

The resulting ecological strains are also causing or exacerbating many forms of social distress and conflict. For example, grinding poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and rampant disease affect one-third of the world and are growing in absolute numbers; not surprisingly, crime, corruption, lawlessness, and anarchy are also on the rise (the fastest-growing industry in the world is security and private police protection); fleeing refugee populations have increased throughout the nineties to about a hundred million; over a billion people in the world who need work cannot find jobs, or toil at such menial work that they cannot afford to support their families; meanwhile, the loss of forests, topsoil, fisheries, and freshwater is, in some cases exacerbating regional and national conflicts.

To provide a little context, the phrase "resulting ecological strains" refers to the result of the "metabolism of industry", which is the process of obtaining and using natural resources, and disposing of waste. Other people might refer to this metabolism as "human activity." So the thesis of this paragraph, as I understand it, is that human activity is causing ecological strains, and that these strains are currently causing or exacerbating many bad things. In fact, virtually all the ills of the world.

I emphasize the authors' use of the present tense. The results of ecological damage are not hypothetical or potential, according to the authors. They are happening now.

There are only two problems with this claim: (1) many of these "forms of social distress" are not, in fact, increasing, and (2) the ones that are increasing are not substantially caused by environmental problems. For example, there is no shortage of food in the world. There is plenty for everyone now, and ample capacity to feed twice as many. Current food production techniques may not (or may) be sustainable, so maybe we can't go on this way, and maybe we need to mend our ways before things get bad, but for now, right now, we're doing just fine, thank you.

Yes, there is poverty and malnutrition in the world, and it may be increasing in absolute numbers (although I am not sure about this). But it is decreasing in relative numbers (the FAO expects it to fall 10% in the next decade) and, more to the point, it doesn't have much to do with topsoil loss, fishery depletion, or or any other environmental problem. As a first approximation, starvation is the result of war and bad government. Peaceful democracies have reasonably low starvation rates. (For more on this point, click here).

What about those fleeing refugees? Are they fleeing environmental strains like the loss of forests, or just menial jobs? More likely, they are fleeing the teenagers with AK-47s and machetes that are trying to kill them and everyone like them. Again, refugees are the result of war and bad government, and again, not many people flee peaceful democracies.

The authors claim it is "not surprising" that crime is on the rise, but what they actually mean to say is that it's "not true". I can't quote world-wide statistics, but I do know that crime in practically every Western country has been falling for more than a decade due to demographic changes, specifically a relative decrease in the population that produces the majority of criminals, young men. (See this report from the Department of Justice.)

Crime may not be rising, but the fear of crime is, which is why private security companies are doing do so well (I am assuming that this claim is, uniquely, correct). But the fear of crime isn't caused by environmental problems; it's caused by mindless alarmists who don't do their homework.

Is "corruption" really on the rise? I suppose it is in some places, but in other places it's not, so it's hard to say whether there is a global trend, and even if there is, how is that related to the environment again?

Is "anarchy" on the rise? I'm not sure exactly what that means, but if anarchy is the opposite of strong, central government, then I suppose the breakup of the Soviet Union is an increase in anarchy. Is that a bad thing? At the same time, isn't the formation of the European Union a decrease in anarchy? Is that a good thing?

Finally, one more time, what do unemployment and "menial jobs" have to do with the environment? At this point, the authors seem to forget which side of the debate they are on. What they call "classical capitalism" is not without problems, many of which the authors enumerate, but one thing it does well is put people to work. Generally speaking, the more "classical capitalism" there is in your country, the more likely it is that you have a job. If not, wouldn't those refugees be fleeing from the United States?

I don't know if I will read the rest of this book. I suppose I could criticize it more fairly if I did, but it is hard to imagine that the people who produced this powerful display of inaccuracy and illogic are going to make an intelligent, well-reasoned and defended argument, starting in Chapter Two. Also, after so many misrepresentations in Chapter One, at this point I simply don't trust the authors. I can't imagine getting much from a book I can't believe.